Rational Response Squad have had their youtube account suspended because the followers of Kent Hovind, The convicted criminal (how christian) and young earth nut, Filed copyright complains with youtube.
It seems to a trend with the religious that if they can't beat someone in to submition with regurgitated rhetoric they will simply try to shut them up, Like they did when they temporarily got Richard Dawkins banned from digg. Personally i love seeing these people get thier panties in a twist and excorsising thier right to lie, it means we are winning.
DIGG IT
September 14, 2007
September 13, 2007
Canadian School Children Allowed To Arm Themselves
.. As long as it's in the name of religion.
I have just stumbled across a story from the middle of last year in which a Canadian Sikh student won the right to carry a dagger (kirpan) to school after the supreme court unanimously decided that denying him this right would infringe his civil liberties. No doubt the idea that he couldn't carry a weapon in school "offended" him.
in 2001 the school banned 12 year old Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the ceremonial dagger after the parent of another child was concerned for the safety of other students. Gurbaj Singh Multani was then suspended and removed from school.
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the judgement. Apparently more important than the safety of the children and teachers who have to spend time with a 12 year with a weapon.
How far does "religious tolerance" go? If i was required, By my religion, To carry a fully loaded cocked and ready AK47 should i be allowed to? And more importantly, Should my 12 year old son be allowed to take it to school?
This "tolerance" thing seems to only go one way. The rest of us are required to be tolerant and respectful of peoples religions, But no respect is shown by religions to us. A dagger is a weapon, Weapons are designed to kill, intimidate and injure. They have no place in schools or places or work.
I have just stumbled across a story from the middle of last year in which a Canadian Sikh student won the right to carry a dagger (kirpan) to school after the supreme court unanimously decided that denying him this right would infringe his civil liberties. No doubt the idea that he couldn't carry a weapon in school "offended" him.
in 2001 the school banned 12 year old Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the ceremonial dagger after the parent of another child was concerned for the safety of other students. Gurbaj Singh Multani was then suspended and removed from school.
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the judgement. Apparently more important than the safety of the children and teachers who have to spend time with a 12 year with a weapon.
How far does "religious tolerance" go? If i was required, By my religion, To carry a fully loaded cocked and ready AK47 should i be allowed to? And more importantly, Should my 12 year old son be allowed to take it to school?
This "tolerance" thing seems to only go one way. The rest of us are required to be tolerant and respectful of peoples religions, But no respect is shown by religions to us. A dagger is a weapon, Weapons are designed to kill, intimidate and injure. They have no place in schools or places or work.
September 08, 2007
The Parasitic, Thieving, Unoriginal Religious
Like fleas clinging to the back of a dog and drinking it's blood the religious have certainly been fast to cash in on the original work of more successful writers by bringing out their "answers" to Atheist books by writers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
Not only have the religious tried to make money from the popularity of atheist books in true christian style, they have even used the names and covers of more popular books in a way which can only be described and plagiarism, Or dare i say, "theft".
This is before we even delve in to the book and start reading the monotonous text, Text which has been almost lifted wholesale from every other parasites book and regurgitated even though it has been proven fallacious and incorrect time after time - It makes me wonder if these fleas even read each others books, Or are they too busy trying to cash in to do research?
I don't have time to quote some of the more fallacious, regurgitate tripe that these books inflict on the reader, So i am going to focus on the obvious plagiarism of the names and front covers.
It begs the question, Are the religious even capable of constructing an original thought any more?
Not only have the religious tried to make money from the popularity of atheist books in true christian style, they have even used the names and covers of more popular books in a way which can only be described and plagiarism, Or dare i say, "theft".
This is before we even delve in to the book and start reading the monotonous text, Text which has been almost lifted wholesale from every other parasites book and regurgitated even though it has been proven fallacious and incorrect time after time - It makes me wonder if these fleas even read each others books, Or are they too busy trying to cash in to do research?
I don't have time to quote some of the more fallacious, regurgitate tripe that these books inflict on the reader, So i am going to focus on the obvious plagiarism of the names and front covers.
It begs the question, Are the religious even capable of constructing an original thought any more?
$200 Million To Victims Of Paedophile Priests
The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego is about to pay out a huge $200 million to around 144 people who were victims of paedophile priests, Most during the 60's and 70's.
While this payout may seem big it pales in comparison to the $660 million previously paid out to 508 victims of paedophile priests who can't keep their hands off of small children.
Bishop Robert H Brom said; "The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation that fairly compensates these victims and would still preserve the ongoing ministries and programs of the church", Of course he failed to mention that six months previously on the eve of the trial the church claimed bankruptcy in an attempt to protect it's assets.
Do these scummy old perverts not know that god doesn't like kiddy fiddlers? It's odd that people who claim to have such a firm belief in the almighty would commit such terrible, wicked sins on vulnerable children who both trust and respect them.
What is it about Catholicism and child abuse? The two seem to go hand in hand. Anyone have any ideas?
While this payout may seem big it pales in comparison to the $660 million previously paid out to 508 victims of paedophile priests who can't keep their hands off of small children.
Bishop Robert H Brom said; "The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation that fairly compensates these victims and would still preserve the ongoing ministries and programs of the church", Of course he failed to mention that six months previously on the eve of the trial the church claimed bankruptcy in an attempt to protect it's assets.
Do these scummy old perverts not know that god doesn't like kiddy fiddlers? It's odd that people who claim to have such a firm belief in the almighty would commit such terrible, wicked sins on vulnerable children who both trust and respect them.
What is it about Catholicism and child abuse? The two seem to go hand in hand. Anyone have any ideas?
September 07, 2007
Constitution 1 - Religion 0
Religion took another blow at the hands of an appeals court and the American constitution lately, And rightly so, When the court ruled that the government were unable to turn a small area of public land containing a cross over to private ownership so that the cross could remain in place in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California.
The reason for this decision is the constitutions clause that states government can not favour any one religion. So when a Buddhist man asked for permission to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross and was denied permission in 1999 it started a long legal battle.
"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.
"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."
The reason for this decision is the constitutions clause that states government can not favour any one religion. So when a Buddhist man asked for permission to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross and was denied permission in 1999 it started a long legal battle.
"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.
"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."
September 06, 2007
Nepal Airlines Is Safe, They Sacrificed Two Goats.
Next time you are flying on Nepal's national airline, Nepal Airlines, You can be rest assured that you are going to experience an event free safe flight. After all, Nepal Airlines have recently sacrificed two goats to appease the Hindu sky god, Akash Bhairab.When Nepal Airlines started experiencing technical problems with one of their Boeing 747's their first reaction wasn't to call out a technician and have a huge overhaul of safely checks and test flights. Nope, They simply slaughtered two goats on the runway in front of the plane in a ritual designed to make their sky god fix the problem. Their sky god is an aircraft engineer, Apparently.
If i was them i would have been praying to the ground god (if they have one), It's the ground that kills you in a crash, Not the sky.
Just another example of how religion turns people in to retards and makes them do dangerous things.
September 03, 2007
The Atheist Test
I have just stumbled across this monstrosity of an illogical argument from the worlds dumbest christian and i just have to address it.
Ray Comfort, The banana guy (yeah, That idiot), Presents a test to atheists, The test consists of two questions and goes something like this.
Question one: Do you know the weight of sand on all the beaches of Hawaii?
Question two: Do you know the number of hairs on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan Yak?
Did you answer "no" to both? I know i did. The point Ray Comfort is so fatuously making is that nobody knows everything (even though science could find the answers). Then Ray uses the obvious fact that nobody knows everything to present the argument that in all the knowledge you don't posses there could be evidence that god does exist.
Well, Yes, A lot of things are possible Ray. It's possible that i will win the lottery tomorrow, It's possible that the sun won't rise, it's possible that the moon will disappear. the thing is Ray, Reasonable people don't live their lives, base their politics, Start wars and raise their children based on what is "possible".
Reasonable people don't mutilate their child's genitals, Cut peoples heads off and bomb abortion clinics based on what is "possible".
So here's test for the religious;
Question #1: Do you know what i had for breakfast?
Question #2: Do you know how many blades of grass are on the planet?
Well surely, if you admit that there is a lot that you don't know you must admit that in there somewhere may possibly be evidence that your god, Or anyone elses, Doesn't exist.
This is where it gets tricky for the religious. Because rational atheists have no problem admitting that there may be a god, After all anything is possible and the atheists main point is that there is no evidence for god. But it's a lot harder for someone who claims to be a believer to admit that they may be wrong.
Between this nonsense and his insane banana argument I'm surprised christians haven't told Ray to shut the fuck up and go away. Even they must see what a moron this guys is. Seriously, He does nothing but harm to your cause by presenting these incorrect, Illogical and fatuous arguments as evidence that his super-buddy-in-the-sky exists.
Ray Comfort, The banana guy (yeah, That idiot), Presents a test to atheists, The test consists of two questions and goes something like this.
Question one: Do you know the weight of sand on all the beaches of Hawaii?
Question two: Do you know the number of hairs on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan Yak?
Did you answer "no" to both? I know i did. The point Ray Comfort is so fatuously making is that nobody knows everything (even though science could find the answers). Then Ray uses the obvious fact that nobody knows everything to present the argument that in all the knowledge you don't posses there could be evidence that god does exist.
Well, Yes, A lot of things are possible Ray. It's possible that i will win the lottery tomorrow, It's possible that the sun won't rise, it's possible that the moon will disappear. the thing is Ray, Reasonable people don't live their lives, base their politics, Start wars and raise their children based on what is "possible".
Reasonable people don't mutilate their child's genitals, Cut peoples heads off and bomb abortion clinics based on what is "possible".
So here's test for the religious;
Question #1: Do you know what i had for breakfast?
Question #2: Do you know how many blades of grass are on the planet?
Well surely, if you admit that there is a lot that you don't know you must admit that in there somewhere may possibly be evidence that your god, Or anyone elses, Doesn't exist.
This is where it gets tricky for the religious. Because rational atheists have no problem admitting that there may be a god, After all anything is possible and the atheists main point is that there is no evidence for god. But it's a lot harder for someone who claims to be a believer to admit that they may be wrong.
Between this nonsense and his insane banana argument I'm surprised christians haven't told Ray to shut the fuck up and go away. Even they must see what a moron this guys is. Seriously, He does nothing but harm to your cause by presenting these incorrect, Illogical and fatuous arguments as evidence that his super-buddy-in-the-sky exists.
Ok, Let's Teach Creation In Schools
Inspired by this Pat Condell video i have come to the conclusion that yes, creation should be taught in schools. We can even call it intelligent design if you want, I know you think calling it "intelligent design" makes it sound actually scientific.
Am i serious? partially, But mostly I'm just saying it to make a point. because surely if we do teach scripture in a science class when it has absolutely zero evidence to back it up we should also be made to teach any other crackpot idea that someone has dreamed up that has no evidence to support it.
So I'm going to propose that we also teach the idea that Pat came up with to explain how humans arrived on planet earth. Think about what kind of creature you would get if you crossed a monkey with a pig. I'm sure you would agree that it would look a lot like a human. In Pat's video he makes the very interesting point that in some cannibal societies human meat is called "long pig". So that settles it, Humans are the result of a pig and a monkey having sex. That's the theory we are going with, And as Pat says, As there isn't a shred of evidence to support it we are going to believe it all the more passionately.
So, The religious, Would you agree to your children being taught our monkey/pig theory if we agree to our children being taught your god-done-it theory?
Does anyone else have a crackpot theory for the origins of man that we can force the children of religious people to learn?
Am i serious? partially, But mostly I'm just saying it to make a point. because surely if we do teach scripture in a science class when it has absolutely zero evidence to back it up we should also be made to teach any other crackpot idea that someone has dreamed up that has no evidence to support it.
So I'm going to propose that we also teach the idea that Pat came up with to explain how humans arrived on planet earth. Think about what kind of creature you would get if you crossed a monkey with a pig. I'm sure you would agree that it would look a lot like a human. In Pat's video he makes the very interesting point that in some cannibal societies human meat is called "long pig". So that settles it, Humans are the result of a pig and a monkey having sex. That's the theory we are going with, And as Pat says, As there isn't a shred of evidence to support it we are going to believe it all the more passionately.
So, The religious, Would you agree to your children being taught our monkey/pig theory if we agree to our children being taught your god-done-it theory?
Does anyone else have a crackpot theory for the origins of man that we can force the children of religious people to learn?
August 31, 2007
Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
For those who don't know, A logical fallacy is a flawed pattern of reasoning. Something which the religious are professionals at.
In this post I'm going to list my favorite ten logical fallacies used by the religious in arguments. I'll also post their meaning and an example of what the fallacy may look like when used in an argument. I'm sure most of you free-thinkers will recognise many of these from past discussions with religious people.
#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, Or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist.
#2. Argumentum ad misericordia - Appealing to pity.
Why are you so intent on destroying something that makes so many sick children happy!
#3. Argumentum ad nauseum - Fallacy that something is likely to be true the more often it is said.
God exists, How many times do i have to tell you?
#4. Argumentum ad novitatem - Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
Of course Islam is the true religion, Mohammad is the most recent prophet.
#5. Argumentum ad populum - Fallacy that something is correct based on the amount of people who believe it.
Look how many people believe in Jesus, They can't all be wrong.
#6. Bifurcation - Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two answers.
Evolution is wrong, So that means creationism is right.
#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.
The bible is the word of god because it says it is, And it can't be wrong, because after all, It is the word of god.
#8. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.
With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?
#9. Plurium interrogationum - Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question.
If god didn't create the universe then explain what did.
#10. Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmful consequences.
If we let gays get married it will be the end of family values.
There are many more but these are my favorites and most commonly used logical fallacies in discussions with religious people.
if you have any more with examples please post them in a reply and I'll add them to the list.
In this post I'm going to list my favorite ten logical fallacies used by the religious in arguments. I'll also post their meaning and an example of what the fallacy may look like when used in an argument. I'm sure most of you free-thinkers will recognise many of these from past discussions with religious people.
#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, Or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist.
#2. Argumentum ad misericordia - Appealing to pity.
Why are you so intent on destroying something that makes so many sick children happy!
#3. Argumentum ad nauseum - Fallacy that something is likely to be true the more often it is said.
God exists, How many times do i have to tell you?
#4. Argumentum ad novitatem - Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
Of course Islam is the true religion, Mohammad is the most recent prophet.
#5. Argumentum ad populum - Fallacy that something is correct based on the amount of people who believe it.
Look how many people believe in Jesus, They can't all be wrong.
#6. Bifurcation - Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two answers.
Evolution is wrong, So that means creationism is right.
#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.
The bible is the word of god because it says it is, And it can't be wrong, because after all, It is the word of god.
#8. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.
With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?
#9. Plurium interrogationum - Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question.
If god didn't create the universe then explain what did.
#10. Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmful consequences.
If we let gays get married it will be the end of family values.
There are many more but these are my favorites and most commonly used logical fallacies in discussions with religious people.
if you have any more with examples please post them in a reply and I'll add them to the list.
Does Religion Deserve Respect?
As an atheist i often get told that i should be respectful of other peoples beliefs, While at the same time no respect is shown to mine. The religious ask me not criticize their belief, Not to question it and more often than not take offence that someone could possibly believe that their god doesn't exist. And all the while they continuously and consistently try to indoctrinate me in to whichever invisible-sky-super-friend cult they have been tricked in to following.
So should free-thinkers respect religion even though they don't believe it? The answer is No, They shouldn't. Religion would be easy to ignore if all it was was a belief in something that doesn't exist, As far as i know it's still perfectly legal to be a moron. But with religion comes more than just a "belief", There also comes actions. The belief causes people to take certain actions and these actions should be neither respected nor tolerated.
Let's use an analogy to look a bit closer at this. if i said that i believed there were invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden and they grant me wishes, Should that belief be "respected"? Of course it shouldn't, it's not true, But it's a fairly harmless belief and it would be easy to write me off as a nut and ignore me. But what if i said that there were invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden and they require me to mutilate my child's genitals, Treat my wife like an animal, Prevent me donating blood that may save someones life, Plant bombs, Cut peoples heads off and not work on a special day? Should my harmless "belief" be respected even though it is responsible for making me take some crazy, And sometimes horrific, Actions?
This is why Atheists and free-thinkers should oppose, Disrespect and try to eradicate religion. Not because it's incorrect and primitive, But because it makes people do things, Things which without religion would be barbaric and illegal.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist
So should free-thinkers respect religion even though they don't believe it? The answer is No, They shouldn't. Religion would be easy to ignore if all it was was a belief in something that doesn't exist, As far as i know it's still perfectly legal to be a moron. But with religion comes more than just a "belief", There also comes actions. The belief causes people to take certain actions and these actions should be neither respected nor tolerated.
Let's use an analogy to look a bit closer at this. if i said that i believed there were invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden and they grant me wishes, Should that belief be "respected"? Of course it shouldn't, it's not true, But it's a fairly harmless belief and it would be easy to write me off as a nut and ignore me. But what if i said that there were invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden and they require me to mutilate my child's genitals, Treat my wife like an animal, Prevent me donating blood that may save someones life, Plant bombs, Cut peoples heads off and not work on a special day? Should my harmless "belief" be respected even though it is responsible for making me take some crazy, And sometimes horrific, Actions?
This is why Atheists and free-thinkers should oppose, Disrespect and try to eradicate religion. Not because it's incorrect and primitive, But because it makes people do things, Things which without religion would be barbaric and illegal.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)